Abstract:
Livestock depredation has implications for conservation
and agronomy; it can be costly for farmers and
can prompt retaliatory killing of carnivores. Lethal control
measures are readily available and are reportedly perceived
to be cheaper, more practical and more effective than nonlethal
methods. However, the costs and efficacy of lethal vs
non-lethal approaches have rarely been compared formally.
We conducted a 3-year study on 11 South African livestock
farms, examining costs and benefits of lethal and non-lethal
conflict mitigation methods. Farmers used existing lethal
control in the first year and switched to guardian animals
(dogs Canis familiaris and alpacas Lama pacos) or livestock
protection collars for the following 2 years. During the first
year the mean cost of livestock protection was USD 3.30 per
head of stock and the mean cost of depredation was
USD 20.11 per head of stock. In the first year of non-lethal
control the combined implementation and running costs
were similar to those of lethal control (USD 3.08 per head).
However, the mean cost of depredation decreased by 69.3%,
to USD 6.52 per head. In the second year of non-lethal
control the running costs (USD 0.43 per head) were significantly
lower than in previous years and depredation
costs decreased further, to USD 5.49 per head. Our results
suggest that non-lethal methods of human–wildlife conflict
mitigation can reduce depredation and can be economically
advantageous compared to lethal methods of predator
control.
